Why does Amarica spend so much time debating gay marriage? Is there not more serious issues?

Question

Gays getting married does not hurt anybody. Im having trouble understanding why it not legal in most states. I have a gay brother and am a firm believer that gay people are born that way. I did not choose to be straight, its just my natural instinct to be attracted to the opposite sex. Im sure that goes the same for gays. Imagine being put down your whole life for something you cannot control. We should legelize it everywhere and stick to more serious issues.

Answer 1

The current debate is foundational. It touches on the issues of how the country should be governed. Whether we should employ democratic and constitutional processes to change the meaning and intent of the US Constitution and the granting of "rights." Second, the current campaign will not ensure that your brother or any other gay or lesbian persons will actually enjoy the privileges and benefits that current heterosexuals enjoy now as a married couple. In short, the current campaign for gay marriages is ill-conceived and will cause more harm than good for both homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals. You need to look beyond the hype and your emotions and become informed. Your goals are not helped by using the incorrect political process.

There are several secular and non-religious reasons for rejecting the current process to secure "Marriage" or "Civil Unions" for gay and lesbians. I have summarized the major reasons below. For more indepth analysis, see the reference below.

I.Why the Current Campaign to Establish Gay
Marriages Is Anti-Democratic and Anti-Constitutional


Our government was founded upon the premise that “Governments are instituted among men [and women], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The current attempt to change the scope and meaning of the US Constitution in regards to 'gay marriages' by side stepping the amendment process will--in the end--jeopardize everyone's freedom. The attempt to expand the current tradition and meaning of marriage to include same gendered individuals through either a judicial pronouncement of a single state or federal judge--or a decision by a “State” or an Appellate Court, and/or through the edicts of several local politicians--should be seen as an attack on our constitutional democracy from within.

Seeking to expand the rights of a few, by the few, by trouncing on the rights of the governed, should be seen as an act similar to those which occasioned the creation of the “Declaration of Independence.”

It is our position that expanding the rights of gays and lesbians to enter into marriage should be done through the amendment process that has been used for over 200 years. Seeking to side step the ‘constitutional’ process in favor of expediency is a sign not of enlightenment, patriotism, nor constitutional fidelity, but of hubris—of pride and arrogance. Historical and constitutional integrity requires all Americans to work to defeat the present attempt to expand the U.S. Constitution by the dictates of the few whether or not an individual believes that granting “gay marriages’ is a just cause.

As stated above and worth mentioning again, it is our position here that the real issue is not whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. The real issues are (1) did the original white male voters, who approved the original articles of the Constitution, mean to include gays and lesbians in the institution of marriage and, if not, (2) did subsequent voters expand marriage to include gays and lesbians and, if not, (3) what are the proper means for expanding the institution of marriage to include gays and lesbians?

As Americans, we should all believe in the use of the “proper means for a proper end.” The proper means for expanding the rights we have under the US Constitution is to submit such changes to the American people via a proposed Constitutional Amendment. We believe that the US Constitution should only be changed with the consent of the governed as is required in our democracy.

The current campaign to enact 'gay marriages' without allowing all Americans to exercise their right to vote is counter-productive to maintaining our constitutional form of democracy, divisive to society, a waste of tax payers' dollars and a frivolous use of the time and skills of our elected and judicial officials. We believe that our elected and judicial officials should be focusing their attention on more urgent and pressing matters.

How did Americans of previous generations expand and change our Constitution and handle differences of opinions, beliefs, and ideologies? Do we have a blue print or a successful model or template to follow? We believe we do!

When African-Americans and White Americans wanted to secure the rights of African-Americans as free individuals under the US Constitution, they put forth a constitutional amendment. When African-Americans and White Americans wanted to ensure that African-Americans and White Americans could enter into marriage and enjoy all the legal rights of other Americans, they passed a constitutional amendment. When Americans of all races and ethnicities and genders wanted to secure the rights of women to vote, they championed another constitutional amendment. And when Americans from all races and ethnicities sought to reestablish the rights of African-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s to vote and to have equal access to our social institutions, they pursued legal action based directly on those same amendments that the American public had passed almost 100 years earlier.

If there are Americans who wish to expand the institution of marriage and the notion of civil rights to include the right to marry whomever an individual so chooses, they should, then, use the same historically tried and historically proven means for enacting those changes. They should propose their own Constitutional Amendment. Until then, we need to honor the sacrifices of our forebears and defend the Constitution as it now stands from the few who have chosen to usurp the power of the governed for an idea and cause that they consider worthy.


II.Why Changing the Definition of Marriage Will Not
Guarantee that Gay and Lesbian Couples Will Secure
the Privileges that Current Married Couples Enjoy

A second reason why we stand oppose to the current campaign to promote “gay marriages” is the propaganda that some advocates are using to persuade the public to the rightness of this cause.

Many gay marriage advocates have cited the need to end discrimination against homosexuals as it relates to inheritance taxes and employee benefits. They argue that homosexuals should have the same ‘rights’ as heterosexuals married couples and that approving ‘gay marriages’ will end this type of discrimination. As will be discussed below, these types of arguments for “gay marriages” are legal fantasies and “myths” that ultimately harm the cause for which these advocates are promoting.

The so-called rights to which they have alluded are not ‘rights’ guaranteed by state or federal constitutions. They are privileges that state and federal legislative bodies have granted with the passage of health and insurance and pension regulations, tax codes, and estate and probate laws. Those legislative bodies can suspend all of these privileges even if there was a constitutional right to marry.

For example, the so-called marital exemption from Federal Transfer Tax is enshrined in the IRS Tax Code and not the US Constitution. What Congress giveth; Congress can taketh away!

In short, the current campaign to grant gays and lesbians the right to marry is wrong because it is anti-democratic and elitist. It is also flawed in it process as the privileges that it seeks for gays and lesbians will not be secured through the legalizing of marriages for gays and lesbians. The current attempt is misdirected. What should happen and how it show happen is listed below.

Instead of continuing the current debate regarding gay or same gendered marriages with its mixture of facts and fiction, myths and reality, we are proposing instead three separate debates on expanding privileges that are currently granted to married individuals and two separate amendments. We believe that by separating the various arguments and issues surrounding "gay marriages" into separate talking and debating points, we will allow greater clarity so that the general public will come to fully understand and appreciate what are the foundational issues that are at stake and the various alternative solutions or outcomes for the same.

It is our belief that the limitations of the current campaign to expand the definition of marriage is misdirected and buries foundational and core issues regarding the expansion, reduction or elimination of the following privileges granted by federal and state legislators to some, but not to all:

I.Group 1: Benefits and Privileges

A.Three Issues That Need Discussion and Debate
1.Employer and Government Benefits and Privileges
2.Inheritance and Estate Tax Exemptions
3.Intestate and Next of Kin Designations and Status


B.Options for Remediation of the Above Felt Disparities

As we argued above regarding the first group of issues, there are currently two ways of adjudicating and mediating any perceived or real discrepancies between married and non-married individuals.

1.Personal and Individual Options

The first is through the use of presently available legal, insurance and benefits' instruments. In "Chart 2: Alternative Legal Means to Obtain Privileges and Benefits" presented above, we have listed the most common and easily assessable ways to alternatively obtain those or similar privileges.

2.Legislative Options

The second way of adjudicating and mediating these perceived and/or real discrepancies is through the introduction of new laws and regulations by federal and state legislators that expand, reduce or eliminate these taxes and/or exemptions. As we have shown above, it is the state and federal government that have granted these exemptions and privileges in the first place. Consequently, it is the same who can modify or eliminate them.

This is not to say that politicians as a group will have the fortitude, courage and will to responsibly present and discuss these issues in a forthright manner. (For example, it is easier to speak of expanding the Federal Estate Transfer Tax Exemption than to speak of eliminating inheritance and estate taxes.) What we are saying is that these privileges and intestate assumptions are wholly within the province of current state and federal legislators to adjudicate and/or remedy. We have proposed on pages 12 to 14 above that federal and state legislators pass "designated individual" statues or similar legislation where non-married individuals would be able to hold alternative "next of kin" designations and accompanying privileges to parallel those that the "spouse" has in regards to intestate matters and medical notification of "next of kin" decisions.

In addition, we believe that two issues need to be addressed by the constitutional amendment process.


II.Group 2: Constitutional Amendments

We believe that a prolong process that engendered multiple, in depth, debates and forums needs to be promoted so that the American public will be able to clearly understand the issues, concerns and consequences involved in redefining "marriage" as an individual right and in expanding "parental rights" to encompass non-biological and non-adoptive "parents:" that is, step-parents, cohabitating partners, grandparents, uncles, aunts and siblings.

In regards to the former, one of those consequences would be the acceptance of polygamy, plural (or group) marriages, incestuous marriages, and not just same gendered marriages. We believe that this is the central and foundational issue that should be openly and fairly debated.

In regards to the latter, a whole host of "what ifs" would need to be discussed. A primary consideration would be whether the rights and freedom of the biological or adoptive parents would be severely curtained or limited such as the freedom to move residency and to accept work promotions and transfers at will.

A.Marriage as an Individual's Constitutional Right
Amendment

We believe that the question of marital rights should not be or cannot be confined and limited to only monogamous, minded homosexuals and heterosexuals. We believe that passing a "Constitutional Right to Marry" amendment would mean that individuals are free to marry the adult or adults of their choosing--whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, monogamous or polygamous, incline to single marital units or plural marital units (plural marriages), non-incestuous or incestuous marriages. If it is an individual right to be protected by the Constitution, then gender, numbers and biological relationships are beside the point.

By accepting the traditional amendment process for adjudicating the desires of a significant part of our citizens to expand the definition of marriage, the general public would have the opportunity to debate, to learn and to inform one another of both the positive and negative ramifications of redefining marriage as an individual's right. This process would allow the various segments of our population with differing and competing interests to have the opportunity to discuss and share their concerns and their findings on what would be some of the unintended consequences of enacting such changes. For example, would the passage of the "right to marriage" amendment increase or decrease employers' health and pension benefits expenses; would it increase or decrease government welfare and benefits expenses; and would it create a net result of having more persons with or without either public or private health and welfare benefits?


B.Constitutional Right to Visitation for Non-Parental
Individuals Amendment

As with the "Right to Marriage" amendment, we believe that it is in the best interest of the American electorate to have such changes debated and explored in the public arena by means of the legislative process to enact a constitutional amendment to secure such rights for individuals. There appears to be a significant number of the population who are in favor of expanding "parental rights" to include the rights of visitation and notification to persons who are not a child's biological or adoptive parents. Alternatively, there could be a campaign to broaden the definition of the "child's rights" to receive visitations by extended family members, stepparents and former cohabitating partners of the child's parents. At this point in the debate, most of the variables and the consequences have not been fully explored.

While we are moved when we hear the heartbreaking anecdotal stories of the grandparents, adult siblings, aunts and uncles, step-parents and others who are prevented from visiting, communicating and maintaining their relationships with the children they love, we must, however, base our decision upon reasonable analysis of the constitutional, social and economical issues and outcomes that such an expansion of parental rights would engender.

For example, how would the expansion of parental visitation rights to individuals who are not the biological or adoptive parents restrict or limit or interfere with the biological and adoptive parents' 14th amendment, and possibly 1st and 4th amendments, rights? Would it limit the parents' freedom to move and buy and sell property because it would infringe on the non-parents' rights of visitation? Would it limit or interfere with the parents' rights to control the speech and the exercise of religion in their own home by forcing them to accept the delivery of political and religious materials for their child or children from non-parental individuals with different or conflicting political, economic, social, moral and religious values?

These and other considerations must and should be fully explored by the American public before we can ensure an informed vote of the electorate on these issues. In short, we need to know what rights parents would be giving up in order to secure the rights of visitation and notification for non-parental figures.

Again, it is our belief that following the traditional political process for amending both federal and state constitutions is the best and most transparent means for giving the general public the opportunity to debate, to learn and to inform one another of both the positive and negative ramifications of redefining or expanding the right of visitation to non-parental figures.

Source(s):

"Gay Marriages 101: A Primer for Journalists, Ethicists, and Public Policy Makers" by Floyd Knight [Forthcoming from Chalice Press and CBP, St. Louis]

Answer 2

America is spending so much time on gay marriage because it's a front for taking some heat off the president for not bringing the troops back from the war.
There is no reason for the government to even get involved in the issue of gay marriage because it is a state issue that has to be ruled on by state officials because it is a religious thing and supposedly the government can't interfere in religious things or it would totally defeat the purpose of us breaking from England back in the day.

Answer 3

Because idiots want us to feud over petty little things while more pressing matters like the enviroment, the Iraqi Conflict, the budget deficit, and the rampant corruption in Congress go unresolved until they become a major problem requiring drastic solutions. The fight over gay marriage is what some people call a 'knee jerk reaction'. Something to rally in the idiots to keep the government from doing the right thing. I'm with ya about making it legal for gays to marry. If they're paying the taxes and serving the country, they're entitled to all the rights. End of story!

Answer 4

You're right, there are more serious issues. And I agree with you about being born gay. (I'm straight). But still, I feel God did not intend for homosexuality to be ... I think it is the work of the devil tampering with life. But I could be wrong, and I do not judge gays. Still, people feel strongly about their religion in America and many folks feel homosexuality is wrong. It goes against Nature. The Bible states it is an abomination. Non gays don't fully understand how gays feel. Is it fair for them to be attracted to the same sex? No - and I don't think God designed them that way.

The term marriage is sacred and to many, means a man and a woman. By it being legalized, (gay marriage) this translates socially as being acceptable, and many religious people feel strongly that is is not acceptable. Therefore, they protest it.

I feel gay people should be allowed legal unions, but save the term marriage for those who feel it is a sacred covenant between a man and woman, approved by God.

Answer 5

It seems to be a matter of human nature and the need to feel superior to someone else, to have some designated group whose rights can legally be denied and who can be blamed for society's ills. Such motivations are not subject to rational argument or logic or empirical evidence. I may be gay, but I don't have any desire to get married. However, I did have that urge when I was in my 20's. I can't help wondering how different my life would have been if that had actually been an acceptable option at that time. I love the hypocrisy of straight society in condemning gays for a stereotypical hedonistic and promiscuous lifestyle, while feigning ignorance at it's own role in denying gays the option of a legal, committed relationship, and berating gays for not following society's "rules" while at the same time denying gays any of the benefits of that society.

Answer 6

Gay marriage is a wedge issue. The SOLE purpose in debating it is to have opinion based support on both sides, making it easy for the public to divide itself. So much easier than talking about the real issues. Far more effective to contort than taking a stance on the economy or the war.

And the bonus? It gets people on both sides all riled up, so they both think they're accomplishing something important. The only thing that combats bigotry is acceptance.

Answer 7

Right wing religious conservatives are in power in the United States, from the White House on down. They use the excuse that a gay marriage is a threat to the sanctity of marriage on one hand but conveniently ignore the 50% divorce rate on the other. Sanctity my a**! Gay marriage hurts no one. It won't affect my marriage or the couple's marriage down the street. Right wing religious conservatives will always be against freedom and liberty. You can be free and think for yourself only as long as you agree with and think like them.

Answer 8

Because it's an issue that scares people who don't know anything about it...plus it's a way for politicians to get cheap votes by proposing a ban to gay marriage without having to bring up the whole "bible says being gay is wrong" thing.

They know there's no way this will hold up in the Supreme Court, once it gets there. Be patient.

Answer 9

This is the thing about human beings is that we just LOVE to create cliches so we can exclude others and feel more superior...it's a shame that in this enlightened age we are still concerned with who does what to whom and how......I agree with you that we should legalize gay marriage because as citizens of any country, they have a right to derive the same benefits as the other citizens. It's a crying shame is what it is.....

Answer 10

I agree with u 100%, weve got rapest and murders on the loose AND WERE AT WAR but yet people are freaking out about this. Some people are just stuped I guess. But I do think the rules well change.

Answer 11

i agree as far as free choice, but our nation was founded by christians and back then people didn't freak out about religion meshed into government or schools and it is against most christian religions(as far as i know) to be with the same sex. sex is naturally for procreation not pleasure so have a boyfriend without sex. just my overview you don't have to agree but it always falls back to religion.